It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Originally posted by XaniMatriXThey are not verified, they even state that all the data is THEORETICAL ...
Add "theoretical" to the list of things you do not understand.
Scientific definition of theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning...
Gravity is a theory - yet it holds you in your chair.
Quantum mechanics is a theory, but if it were wrong, your computer would not work.
Relativity is a theory, but if it were wrong, GPS would not work.
The list goes on...
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
Then if you did it for the shuttle, why is it so hard to do for Apollo? It's the same thing. If you don't adjust for inflation, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
... no matter how many scientists worked there they didn't all go to the moon, 12 people out of 400 000 hired employees, YIKES. and that also doesn't include you or me or anyone else on this website.
So unless you also have evidence of being with them on the moon, you cannot claim it be a fact also.
Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
... no matter how many scientists worked there they didn't all go to the moon, 12 people out of 400 000 hired employees, YIKES. and that also doesn't include you or me or anyone else on this website.
So unless you also have evidence of being with them on the moon, you cannot claim it be a fact also.
Your standard of evidence is absolutely ludicrous.
So, for the existence of Switzerland to be stated as a fact, you, me and anyone else on this website has to have been there? You could say that the existence of Switzerland is a fact, but that would not make it so. You could say that you have been there, but do you have irrefutable, unfakable proof that you have been there - or ANYWHERE for that matter?
By your standard of evidence, the existence of any place (let alone an Apollo landing site) cannot be stated as a fact because "you or me or anyone else on this website" have not been there.
Ridiculous.
Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
For example i know the moon is real since i can see it and everyone else also, but i cannot make claims as to what it is and what it is made of since i have not been there and i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts, do you? if the answer is no, and you claim that the moon landing is real with only seeing images of it, then you are making a false personal claim.
Originally posted by XaniMatriX...the land that that corporation (Switzerland) is occupying is real, since i have been on it and my friends were born there, and since i know my friends then it is a a fact for me (provided that they are alive), i cannot say the same to you unless you know someone or have been there for your self.
For example i know the moon is real since i can see it and everyone else also, but i cannot make claims as to what it is and what it is made of since i have not been there and i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts...
Originally posted by XaniMatriX... i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts, do you?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
That's because just like with regular aviation, we've plateaued. It's going to take some kind of big breakthrough to see a huge change in space travel, and in air travel. Just look at the next space vehicle. We're going back to an Apollo style capsule because it's safer, and it's cheaper to build.
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by r2d246
If they went and the footage sucked then it sucked, do you think the whole program was about getting good film footage?
Most of the people who believe the hoax theories can be summed up by this photograph:
Sorry it had to come to this.
Read though this thread from the beginning r2. You will see that the OP is either a troll or a bit mad, he ignores arguments, dodges questions and then makes statements like "so it's been established".
Put yourself in an unbiased position for a moment and think about it. Have any real arguments for faked landings been put forward by the OP?
edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:
"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"
Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting the specific hypothesis stated in the tile??
In short: he didn't.
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by rolfharriss
We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.
NO what we have established is that Moon Hoax believers really believe the BS they spout and try to convince themselves by repeating it and it also seem that science was not a subject at the schools they attended!
Same goes for the believers, unless you were with the man that landed on the moon, you can't say they DID IT as fact, you would have to witness it first hand in order to make such a claim.
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
Wrong on so many levels.
We are dealing in matters of verified data, verified by countless hundreds of thousands of academics and scientists worldwide since the sixties. Hoax believers are dealing in speculation, misconception, lack of comprehension(your failing to grasp what inflation means is a good example), pseudo science, and liars.
Do you know how many people worked on the Apollo missions?
edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)
They are not verified, they even state that all the data is THEORETICAL and that they made ASSUMPTIONS, every scientist does this before they release something, because if they were to say IT"S A FACT, and new evidence were to prove them wrong, that would be very bad for them, but stating that it's an educated guess means there is room for error, and the publisher wont be at fault, that picture of the monkey's apply to both, and no matter how many scientists worked there they didn't all go to the moon, 12 people out of 400 000 hired employees, YIKES. and that also doesn't include you or me or anyone else on this website.
So unless you also have evidence of being with them on the moon, you cannot claim it be a fact also.